HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      The complainant/respondent is an agriculturist who obtained electricity for agricultural purpose.   His electricity supply having been disconnected, he applied for re-connection of the said supply.  On 23.04.2011, he applied for re-connection of the said supply alleging therein that his supply was disconnected by the Junior Engineer Mr. S.K. Sharma in 2005.  He also expressed grievance that despite disconnection, bills were continuously being received by him.  There is no evidence of any reply to the said application dated 23.04.2011 having been given but the initial report dated 17.05.2011 from the concerned Junior Engineer to the concerned Assistant Engineer has been filed.   As per the said initial report, the supply was disconnected on 11.03.2011. 

2.      A bill amounting to Rs.68,691/- was sent to the complainant.  He approached the concerned District Forum seeking quashing of the said payment and also sought a new connection at his well. 

3.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which inter-alia alleged that the connection was disconnected on 11.03.2011 on account of non-payment of flat rate charges by the complainant and a sum of Rs.67,133/- being the amount of the electricity bills was pending against him at the time the supply was disconnected.  It was further stated in the reply that the complainant was seeking re-connection without paying the arrears of the electricity consumed by him.

4.      The District Forum, vide its order dated 15.01.2013, directed the petitioner to re-connect the electricity on the complainant paying a sum of Rs.15,000/- in 20 installments.  The aforesaid order was not challenged by the petitioner but was challenged by the consumer.   The State Commission, vide its order dated 05.01.2016, quashed the entire payment and directed re-connection of the supply.  Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.  

5.      The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the electricity supply was disconnected in the year 2005 as is alleged by the complainant or it was disconnected in the year 2011 as is alleged by the petitioner.  On this question of fact, the District Forum did not agree with the complainant but the State Commission returned a finding that the supply was disconnected in the year 2005 and not in the year 2011.  As noted earlier, in his application seeking re-connection, the complainant had specifically alleged that the supply was disconnected by the Junior Engineer Mr. S.K. Sharma in the year 2005.  The petitioner admittedly did not examine Mr. S.K. Sharma before the District Forum nor his affidavit was filed to controvert the allegation made in the application seeking re-connection.  In fact, even no reply was sent to the complainant stating therein that his supply was disconnected in the year 2011 and not in the year 2005.  More importantly, there is no explanation as to why no steps were taken to recover the dues for six years if the supply was disconnected only in the year 2011.  This becomes important considering the case of the petitioner that the arrears on flat rate basis had mounted to Rs.67,133/-.  Had the supply not been disconnected in the year 2005, the petitioner would, in normal course, have taken steps to recover the dues and the supply would have disconnected much earlier.  In the ordinary course, the petitioner was not likely to continue the supply without receiving the electricity charges for as much as six years.  Therefore, the view taken by the State Commission is absolutely justified and does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 

6.      It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that clause 47 of the terms and conditions for supply of electricity, prescribed by the petitioner company, provide a limitation of two years for re-connection of the supply and therefore, the direction for re-connection would be time barred in the case the supply was disconnected in the year 2005 as is held by the State Commission.  The aforesaid clause to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

“(1)    xxxxxx

(2)     A person whose power supply has been cut off for non-payment of dues of the Nigam or due to any other reasons, may apply for restoration of supply to the Nigam.  An application for restoration of supply shall be considered if made within

          (a)     For Agriculture consumer

                   As prescribed in agriculture policy of the State Government.

          (b)     For others

                   Two years

of the date of disconnection.  A person applying after this period, shall be treated as a new applicant and shall be required to complete formalities as are required for new connection.”

          It would thus be seen that for agricultural consumers, the period for re-connection is governed by the agricultural policy of the Government and not by the terms and conditions for supply.  The agricultural policy of the Government is available on page no. 31 & 32 of the paper-book and to the extent it is relevant, the said policy reads as under:

“2.     In case the time gap between the date of disconnection of agriculture connection and date of submission of application for re-connection is more than two years and upto 15 years, then any such connection also may be re-connected.

          Connection disconnected for more than two years time period may be restored/re-connected after charging the arrear standing at the time of disconnection of connection of consumer and compounding interest thereon @16% per annum with half yearly rest and re-connection charges.  If line was removed, then additional amount @ Rs.1500/- per H.P. upto 10 H.P. and thereafter @ Rs.750/- per H.P. will be deposited.

xxxxxx

          If connection is/was at the Well but Khatedari was of another person, even then for re-connection of such disconnected connections, aforesaid Rule shall be applicable.  Such connection cannot be shifted at other place.

          Such cultivators/farmers of General Category, in whose Wells water has dried, their agricultural electricity connection may be temporary disconnected after proper verification of their application by the concerned Assistant Engineer.  Such consumers may get their electricity connection re-connected/restored at any time within two years time but this facility shall be provided to the consumer only once.  Minimum charge of period of disconnection of electricity connection shall not be charged.

          It would thus be seen that the agricultural connections can be re-connected upto 15 years from the date of disconnection and the period of two years would be applicable only where the farmers/cultivators have themselves got the supply disconnected on the ground that the water level had dried.  This is not the case of the petitioner that the electricity supply to the complainant was disconnected on his request, on the ground that the water in his wells had dried.  The case of the petitioner is that the said supply was disconnected on account of non-payment of the electricity charges.  Therefore, the aforesaid clause would not apply to this case and consequently, re-connection is permissible upto 15 years from the date of disconnection. 

7.      The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the case of the complainant before the District Forum was that the supply was disconnected on account of the well water having dried up.  However, the case of the petitioner in its reply was different and it had taken a specific stand that the supply was disconnected on account of payment dues.  This was not the case of the petitioner that the supply was disconnected on the application of the complainant for temporary disconnection on account of drying up of the well.  Hence, it would be difficult to say that the said supply was discontinued on account of the well water having dried up.  The aforesaid policy stipulates proper verification on receipt of application from the farmers and verification has to be carried out by the concerned Assistant Engineer before temporarily disconnecting the supply on the aforesaid grounds.  That admittedly, was not done.  Therefore, it would be difficult to say that the supply was discontinued on account of drying up of the well water.  Consequently, the re-connection is permissible in terms of the agricultural policy to the Government. 

8.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.  It is made clear that the orders passed by the fora below will not come in the way of the petitioner recovering any charges payable as per rules for the re-connection but the arrears of Rs. 67,133/- will not be recovered.